Fund managers tilt towards stocks from the location of their tertiary education (education province). We find that, compared with their peers, fund managers overweight stocks headquartered in their education provinces. This overweighting differs from other biases, such as local bias, hometown bias, and educational ties, and is detrimental to fund performance. Funds with more education-province bias have poorer fund performance and higher idiosyncratic risk than those with less bias. Further analysis shows that education-province bias is more evident during poor market times, among underperforming funds, for stocks with less information asymmetry, in economically depressed provinces, and when fund managers are educated at lower-ranked institutes. Overall, our findings suggest that education-province bias is largely attributed to fund managers’ familiarity bias.

Prior research finds that clients of high-quality auditors report higher-quality GAAP earnings. We extend this research to investigate whether auditor quality is associated with the quality of voluntarily disclosed non-GAAP earnings measures. Using a sample of Australian firms disclosing annual non-GAAP metrics, we find that clients of high-quality auditors are more likely to voluntarily disclose non-GAAP earnings numbers. However, clients of high-quality auditors make adjustments in calculating non-GAAP earnings (non-GAAP exclusions) that are less predictive of future earnings and less value relevant than those of other firms. These results indicate that their adjustments are of higher quality. We also find similar results for U.S. firms using a sample of quarterly non-GAAP earnings disclosures. Overall, our evidence indicates that commonly used indicators of audit quality for GAAP reporting are positively associated with the quality of voluntarily disclosed non-GAAP earnings measures.

This study assesses the impact of minority shareholder empowerment via lower defeat thresholds in “say-on-pay” votes on CEO compensation and career prospects for directors. We exploit the adoption of the Australian “two-strikes” rule as a quasi-exogenous shock, which empowers shareholders to vote on board dismissal if a firm’s remuneration report receives 25 percent or more dissent votes for two consecutive years. Using a difference-in-differences methodology, we find that firms respond to a “strike” by curbing excessive CEO pay. Under the two-strikes regime, independent directors are held more accountable for poor oversight and experience significant reputational penalties in terms of turnover and the loss of outside directorships subsequent to receiving a strike. The results are mainly driven by firms receiving a nonmajority strike, indicating that the effectiveness of the two-strikes regime stems largely from the lower defeat threshold. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.